The NCAA had sought to push the trial to February due to the overlap between it and former Nebraska quarterback Sam Keller's right-of-publicity case. But U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken separated the Keller case from the O'Bannon antitrust case and set the Keller case for a date next March.

Wilken also denied the NCAA's request to sever all evidence and claims related to video games from the antitrust case. That will allow the O'Bannon plaintiffs to pose arguments about the NCAA's relationship with Electronic Arts and Collegiate Licensing Company involving video games.

"We got everything we wanted from the ruling and that was to stop the efforts by the NCAA of diverting the issue," Michael Hausfeld, lead attorney for the O'Bannon plaintiffs, told CBSSports.com.

The O'Bannon plaintiffs are seeking an injunction to end NCAA restrictions preventing college athletes from being compensated for use of their names and likenesses.

NCAA chief legal officer Donald Remy responded in a statement: "Although the plaintiffs' eleventh-hour change in strategy has denied a jury the opportunity to decide the important issues in the O'Bannon litigation, we are prepared for trial and look forward to presenting our case to the Judge. At the same time, we will continue to prepare for a jury trial in the Keller case that is scheduled for March."

Hausfield said there remains the possibility of a settlement, but the sides are not close to such an agreement and he questioned whether the NCAA's membership would even be on the same page for any settlement talks -- noting a recent push by Pac-12 presidents for reform and autonomy and Boise State president Bob Kustra's fiery response.

"They obviously don't trust each other," Hausfield told CBSSports.com. "You have the Pac-12 writing one letter and the head of Boise State writing another."